Bullying and the Gifted

Victims, Perpetrators, Prevalence, and Effects

By Jean Sunde Peterson and Karen E. Ray
Purdue University

PUTTING THE RESEARCH TO USE
This study provides information to parents, school personnel, and counselors that can be useful when
advocating for the safety and well-being of gifted students. The reality that many victims apparently do not report incidents to adults at school or at home means that parents, teachers, and counselors should keep bullying in mind when attempting to ascertain why a child expresses hopelessness, appears uncomfortable in school, withdraws socially, becomes hypervigilant, or has problems eating or sleeping.

Direct questions about bullying (e.g., “Have you ever seen someone being bullied?” “Have you ever been bullied?”), including references to a wide range of bullying behaviors (e.g., “Have you ever seen a student threaten someone?”), may generate important revelations. Open-ended questions are best for generating conversation without provoking defensiveness (e.g., “Tell me about recess, the lunchroom, lining up for the bus. How do the kids behave when they’re not in the classroom?” “How do you feel when you’re on your way to school in the morning?”). Teachers, in the classroom and when supervising elsewhere, need to consider bullying broadly, watch for both overt and subtle bullying, not ignore bullying when it occurs, and not blame the victim. The fi nding that gifted children and early adolescents can also be bullies suggests that teachers should be particularly alert to nonphysical
bullying, which the study found to be associated with gifted bullies, and intervene immediately.
Proactive psychoeducational curriculum for young gifted children and others, as well, can encourage
pro-social behavior and enhance coping and general interpersonal skills.

ABSTRACT
Gifted eighth graders (N = 432) in 11 U.S. States participated in a retrospective national study that explored the prevalence and effects of being bullied and being a bully during kindergarten through grade 8. No signifi cant differences were found related to size of city, race/ethnicity, and geographical region in terms of either being bullied or being a bully. Sixtyseven percent of all participants had experienced at least 1 of 13 kinds of bullying listed on the survey, more in grade 6 than in other grades, and 11% had experienced repeated bullying. Name-calling and teasing about appearance were the most common kinds of bullying, and the latter was among several kinds of bullying signifi cantly related to emotional impact. In grade 8, 16% were bullies, and 29% had violent thoughts. At all grade levels, a larger percentage of males than females were bullied, were bullied more than 10 times, and were bullies.

CONCLUSION
The fi ndings in this study have powerful implications not only for gifted education, but also for all of K–12 education. Bullying appears to be a signifi cant problem for gifted children and early adolescents. Evidence of continued escalation of certain kinds of bullying throughout middle school in this study raises concerns that bullying might continue in high school in altered, but still insidious, forms. On the other hand, the decreasing percentages after grade 6 in name-calling and teasing about appearance, the two most common kinds of bullying, provide some hope that bullying is actually less a problem during high school than earlier (cf. Long & Pellegrini, 2003). However, the continuing increase of thinking about doing something violent tempers that optimism, as well as the reality that 41% of the gifted eighth graders in this study worried about violence in school daily. Educators and parents certainly should not assume an absence of bullying just because gifted children and adolescents do not speak of it and adults do not see it.
Perhaps the most surprising fi nding of this study is that 16% of the gifted participants were bullies in grade 8, after steadily increasing in number from kindergarten on. Gifted bullies may or may not be among the proactively aggressive bullies who are perceived to be popular. Regardless, as noted in the literature, the long-term prognosis for bullies is not positive. In terms of long-term health and well-being, it is just as important for educators and parents to intervene with gifted bullies as with gifted
victims of bullying, while recognizing that the latter are more numerous, according to this study. The noteworthy percentages of gifted victims and bullies certainly stand in stark contrast to the research literature about the low scholastic competence of both bullies and their victims (e.g., Mynard & Joseph, 1997).
The fi ndings in this study can help to raise awareness of the need for proactive, prevention-oriented, systemic school programs, especially during the late-elementary and middle-school grades. No single approach is “best practice” (Rigby, 2003), and schoolwide prevention programs must be specifi c to context. Nevertheless, preprofessional training and continuing education of teachers about bullying, collaborative efforts of educators and parents to protect children from bullies, and empirically proven curricula to alter perceptions of bullying and develop effective social skills all have the potential to make bullying abnormal and unpopular, instead of accepted as a normal part of development during the school years.